HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
March 11, 2003 Hearing Room E
3:00 PM Tapes 29 - 30
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Tim Knopp, Chair
Rep. Alan Brown, Vice-Chair
Rep. Deborah Kafoury, Vice-Chair
Rep. Jeff Barker
Rep. Tom Butler
Rep. Greg Macpherson
Rep. Mary Nolan
Rep. Dennis Richardson
Rep. Wayne Scott
STAFF PRESENT: Cara
Filsinger, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 2008 – Public Hearing
HB 2020 – Public Hearing
HB 2330 – Public Hearing
HB 2421 – Public Hearing
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
Tape 29, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Knopp |
Calls meeting to order at 3:09 p.m. and opens public
hearing son HB 2008 and HB 2020. |
|
HB 2008
AND HB 2020 – PUBLIC HEARINGS |
||
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Enters into the committee record a follow-up letter
on optional retirement plans received from Denise Yunker, Oregon University
System (OUS) (EXHIBIT A). |
|
013 |
Brian Delashmutt |
Employee Coalition.
Reports on discussion of work group on successor plan for PERS. |
|
049 |
Jim Green |
Employer Coalition.
Comments on discussions of work group on successor plan for PERS. Requests actuary assistance on development
of costs of components of proposed plan.
Asks Chair Knopp if they should submit the agreements they have or continue
to work until Thursday. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Advises the group should continue to meet and be
prepared to submit their report on Thursday. |
|
078 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks if the work group is working on a plan for new
hires. |
|
|
Delashmutt |
Responds affirmatively and states they are having
discussions also about a plan that current PERS members would be allowed to
move over to. |
|
107 |
Green |
Comments that the plan being discussed would provide
an option for both Tier I and II members and would not force anyone to move
over. |
|
|
Delashmutt |
Comments on advantages to employees and employers of
having current employees move to a new system. |
|
118 |
Chair Knopp |
Comments on retirement plans of government agencies
in Oregon. Enters into the record a
report “Non PERS Employers with Social Security Section 218, Political
Subdivisions” (EXHIBIT B). Adds that likely there is a group of
public employers that cannot be tracked because they don’t have a social
security element to their plan. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearings on HB 2008 and HB 2020
and opens a public hearing on HB 2330. |
|
HB 2330
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
|
Rep. Butler |
Explains that he introduced HB 2330 at the request
of a rural road district. States he
has four rural road districts in his legislative district. Explains that it is difficult to find
people to commute to work in a rural road districts. They wish to be able to continue to hire
retirees and that the retirees be allowed to work in excess of 1040 hours. |
|
|
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks what the justification is for an individual
retiring on Friday and yet continuing to work the following Monday collecting
full retirement benefits and full income benefits doing the same job he was
doing before retirement. |
|
|
Rep. Butler |
Responds that the person is double-dipping in the
sense that they are still working and receiving retirement benefits. States he does not have difficulty with
that, particularly when nobody is rushing to the jobs in these small
communities. Comments that rural
schools are addressed in other measures.
|
|
239 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2330 and opens a
public hearing on HB 2421. |
|
HB 2421
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
|
Dave Guile |
An elementary school principle and resident of
Keizer. Presents prepared statement
in support of HB 2431 (EXHIBIT C). |
|
311 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments on attempts to develop a new system for new
hires. Asks for comments on the current
system that provides unreduced benefits to people who want to retire to
capture the unreduced benefit and draw a paycheck at the same time. Asks if that should be replicated in a
successor plan. |
|
328 |
Guile |
Responds that generally he thinks the system rewards
the people who put in 30 years plus.
It provides an opportunity for government to retain experience in
public service by saying the employee may retire and continue to work. It is worth considering. |
|
355 |
Rep. Barker |
Asks how they would determine who gets a job. |
|
|
Guile |
Explains how the school district could advertise and
hire employees, and explains the limitations on the employer. |
|
373 |
Rep. Barker |
Asks what happens if someone gets hurt on the job. |
|
|
Guile |
Responds that he assumes they would be covered by
workers compensation. |
|
|
Chair Kopp |
Asks if the 10 percent limitation of employees would
apply to the district in general instead of classification. |
|
|
Guile |
Responds that is correct. |
|
|
Rep. Butler |
Asks if this bill would allow Rep. Backlund to go
back to work. |
|
400 |
Rep. Backlund |
Responds he believes this bill would permit the
school district to rehire any employee, including himself. Comments on the desire of employees desiring
to continue to work who felt they must retire. Believes this will be a real benefit to public employers. |
|
TAPE 30, A |
||
|
023 |
Rep. Backlund |
Comments that this bill should not be the final
process. Notes provision that
employee must give back six percent and states he would be willing to amend
that out. Believes there is some real
urgency in making changes. If
committee is interested, they can add the emergency clause. |
|
046 |
Rep. Brown |
Asks if this would set aside labor contracts. |
|
|
Rep. Backlund |
Comments that the provisions could be dealt with and
the ideas could be implemented right away.
Comments on scenarios involving contracts. |
|
065 |
Rep. Nolan |
Comments on the design of life expectancy tables to
take away the need to rush to the door.
Asks if the witnesses do not think that provision will be effective. |
|
|
Guile |
Responds he thinks there are too many other bills
that are in the process that the employees are uneasy about. The perceptions is that PERS will be
changed so significantly it will take years for them to get back to where
they are now. |
|
088 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks if the witnesses have consulted other public
employers. |
|
|
Guile |
Responds he has not. |
|
|
Rep. Backlund |
Responds no, and states he considered how beneficial
it would be. |
|
101 |
Rep. Barker |
Comments that in labor negotiations, the contract
supersedes the law. States that the
organizations are very nervous about who gets to stay in and who
doesn’t. This will also plug up system
for the new hires. |
|
113 |
Guile |
Comments on being able to hire more teachers at a
lesser rate. |
|
125 |
Rep. Backlund |
Suggests the committee could impose a sunset. |
|
134 |
Rep. Butler |
Comments on employers not being allowed to pick up
the six percent on returning employees (page 15, line 1 of the bill). Comments that he would like to look at a group
of employees with the benefits and those without to show the compensation costs
to the employer. It compensates the
school district because they do have a higher PERS rate in the process; it is
not a loss to the overall system. |
|
177 |
Rep. Backlund |
Comments that HB 2421 is the big concept and they
will leave the details to the committee if the committee likes the general
concept. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Enters into the committee record a letter received
from Harvey Bennett, President of Umpqua Community College in support of HB
2421 (EXHIBIT D). |
|
190 |
Steve Delaney |
PERS Legislative Liaison. Presents prepared statement on HB 2421 and proposing amendments
(EXHIBIT E). |
|
241 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks if PERS has done an analysis of 10 percent of
positions statewide, and what it would do to retirement of the unfunded
liability. |
|
|
Jim Voytko |
Responds that the effect on the actuarial standing
is modest. They are not generating
any obligations; it seems to be a wash.
Comments on the need for employers to amortize, and shifting of
costs. |
|
299 |
Rep. Butler |
Notes that the bill limits the number of employees
to 10 percent. |
|
|
Voytko |
Comments that the six percent contribution happens
to be very close to at least the current charge per capita associated with
the amortization or payoff of the unfunded actuarial liability as it is analyzed
today. States that the rate will grow
in the next rate setting. |
|
319 |
Delaney |
Notes that the 10 percent limit is in Section 7 and
Section 8 does not prevent an employer from rehiring a retired employee under
the other provisions of .082, which remain in effect. They could hire under the normal 1039
rules. |
|
|
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks if there has been an analysis of employees
working in excess of the allowable hours for retirees. |
|
343 |
Delaney |
Explains scenario where PERS may consider an entire
employment period. |
|
|
Voytko |
Comments on what is considered volunteer work. |
|
382 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks if PERS knows how many retirees are working. |
|
. |
Delaney |
Responds it is not reported to them. |
|
406 |
Tom Heiser |
Representing substitute teachers. Testifies in opposition to HB 2421 (EXHIBIT F). |
|
Tape 29, B |
||
|
|
Heiser |
Continues presentation. |
|
029 |
Rep. Butler |
Comments that should this bill become law we would
see whether it attracts retired teachers at the lowest compensation. Asks if this would create problems for new
teachers who must teach at least half time and substitute teachers. |
|
|
Heiser |
Responds affirmatively. States if this were law,
there would be a ten percent loss of jobs for teachers who have just
graduated. Cites number of applicants
at job fair for elementary and middle school teachers and availability of
teaching positions. |
|
051 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks what the number of applicants were for high
schools. |
|
|
Heiser |
Responds he does not know because the research was
done by someone else. |
|
060 |
Tom Manton |
Keizer resident.
Comments that this adds new benefits to the system. Notes he is neutral on the bill. Notes that the workforce will be older and
the health costs will rise and will skew the rates. Notes that total payroll will drop. Cautions about unintended consequences. Always concerned when new benefits are
conferred to existing employees. |
|
081 |
Bob Livingston |
Oregon State Firefighters. States he will take a neutral position but is more prone to
oppose it. Thinks that placing
something in statute for a short-term problem is problematic. Also is not sure how something like this
will fit into a new successor plan. Also
cautions committee to consider the unintended consequences. Asks who would choose the 10 percent of
employees that would be hired under this. Suggests there needs to be further evaluation of risk to human
resources and personnel management.
States there are other options before this committee, including the
plan in HB 2723, which could provide a short-term fix for PERS and fit better
into a successor plan. |
|
134 |
Brian Delashmutt |
Representing his clients, not coalition. States that his clients have looked at the
bill and see some of the same flaws that have already been discussed. They are interested in on-going discussion
about not having a brain drain. Questions
how this bill fits into the whole picture. |
|
178 |
Mary Botkin |
American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME). Comments that they
represent a lot of people in public safety and they do not think an older
workforce is always the best thing and that they do not want to diminish the
importance of experience. Notes
provision in the law currently that allows six months of employment. Also represent forensic technicians,
doctors and nurses. Reasons that young
employees bring new ideas and provide flexibility. Comments on the need for
experienced staff to teach the new employees the ropes. Comments on Oregon having one of the
highest unemployment rates in the count, and allowing the retirees to enjoy
life. They do not want to cut down on
the number of available jobs now. |
|
|
BethAnn Darby |
Oregon Education Association (OEA). Testifies in opposition to HB 2421 (EXHIBIT G). |
|
247 |
Rich Peppers |
SEIU.
Testifies in opposition to HB 2421.
Expresses concern about collective bargaining requirement for entry
level pay, fairness, and generation of new jobs. |
|
287 |
Arnie Leinsberg |
Retired federal employee. Comments on working after retirement and salary received. Comments on acquaintenances desiring to
work halftime, and negative reaction of people who hear about PERS
retirees. |
|
351 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks at what percentage of his salary he retired at. |
|
|
Leisberg |
Responds that his retirement was about 40 percent of
his salary. |
|
|
George Stillingworth |
Keizer resident.
States his daughter is in Mr. Guile’s second grade class. Comments on the 10 percent limitation of
retired persons being hired, and people who have degrees don’t always not
staying in that field as a career |
|
407 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2421 and adjourns
meeting at 4:33 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HB 2008 and HB 2020, letter, Denis Yunker, 2 pp
B
– HB 2008 and HB 2020, report, Rep. Knopp, 6 pp
C
– HB 2421, prepared statement, Dave Guile, 1 p
D
– HB 2421, letter, Harvey Bennett, 1 p
E
– HB 2421, prepared statement, Jim Voytko, 5 pp
F
– HB 2421, prepared statement, Tom Heiser, 1 p